Pay-to-play EC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many pay-to-play activities out there, can admissions officers at elite colleges tell the difference? Or do they not care because it shows the student is resourceful?

Why does it matter? I actually want AOs to know that we are full pay parents who do not need FA - that's going to be a boost in this admissions cycle.

I agree. This is my problem with Application Nation. Harberson insists that you can’t put any summer pre-college programs on your application. It shows too much privilege. Don’t colleges want full pay kids? Don’t they already know kid is privileged given the basic facts: private school, highly educated parents, profession of parents, etc. Many kids have really meaningful experiences at these summer programs that help them figure out what they want to do in college. Not talking about the experiences AT ALL in the “why this major” essay or listing on the activities list to show fit to major is crazy to me.

I agree its crazy. My kid definitely had a meaningful experience from the summer pre-college course; got a taste of college classwork and living away from home, confirmed that the subject he thought he was interested in was actually interesting, and wrote some research papers. He put it on his college applications and he got into his first choice - not that I would argue that the summer pre-college course was what put him over the top, but it was part of the entire package he submitted.

[Anonymous]

What happens if one puts Chicago summer program in the activity list? Would they presume that you got rejected ED0? Sure there are innocent cases where applicants tried Chicago summer and genuinely don't the school. But the presumption is there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The two biggest ones I see are:
* Internships
* Research experiences

An STEM intern working at a government lab (or at a defense contractor like Lockheed, Northrup, MITRE, or Aerospace) is paid, usually by the employer by the (GS-3 is typical for government pay for HS students). These are competitive positions to get. They will expose the intern to research & development, although the intern’s work usually will be peripheral to the overall research effort. They are not pay-to-play and college admissions folks generally know all of this.

[Anonymous]

I've interviewed for a top 10 for several years. I've had students denied with:
* Nonprofits (many)
* "Startups"
* Regeneron
* "Research" opportunities
* Normal-excellent ECs (quiz bowl, student gov, etc.)
* Pre med-type ECs (shadowing a doctor or the like)

I've had only two students get in:
* One went to a nationally competitive free summer program
* One had a genuinely competitive internship, i.e. obviously not at his dad's friend's lab

My conclusion based on this small sample size is that the adcom at my alma mater likes people who have already been admitted to programs that resemble the school itself in these respects: highly competitive, with long applications read by a committee, many people denied, but also plentiful financial aid. So, if you are looking for things to do, look for that. Or just have the kid scoop ice cream. It couldn't hurt, and it would be more fun than grinding the fake nonprofit or "research opportunity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two biggest ones I see are:
* Internships
* Research experiences

Genuinely curious but why would anyone pay for research experiences? So many university faculty that have NSF research grants would love to work with high school students and most universities have extensive high school research opportunity programs.

Faculty do not want to work with high schoolers.

Pretty much every ISEF/STS winner and finalist worked with faculty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many pay-to-play activities out there, can admissions officers at elite colleges tell the difference? Or do they not care because it shows the student is resourceful?

How does it show the kid is resourceful?

It shows their family is resource-full

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

Let me restate for you:

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A wealthy parent is going to teach their child how to use wealth to get what they want.

Just as some schools/programs will value the golf skill or the science research background that has been, to some degree, inherited, some schools will value having kids who have wealth and know how to use it to their advantage. Some schools/programs will not value these inherited gifts (though most will probably value that science researcher's kid's research ability no matter the discipline).

The funny thing to me is that wealthy parents believe that kids who have wealth and know how to use it to their personal advantage are somehow universally appreciated at schools. Why? If the school is cash strapped or has a culture where that quality will be a cultural fit, sure. If not, who cares? It's not really a benefit to the school or for the composition of most classes.

[Anonymous]

The pro golfer parent analogy isn't perfect. A pro golfer will train their kid to play golf, and the kid will excel in tournaments, etc. It's not the training that gets them in, it's the genuinely notable results of that training.

The simply rich parent may pay for "experiences," but if those "experiences" don't produce anything of genuine note, the kid may as well be delivering papers or scooping ice cream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

DH is a physician. Our son worked with one of his colleagues this summer to do research. Our HS son still had to apply and interview. Would he have gotten the position if DH did not know the lab head? Maybe not, but my kid is still a straight A student interested in science and medicine. We did not pay to play. We did have to pay for his housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

DH is a physician. Our son worked with one of his colleagues this summer to do research. Our HS son still had to apply and interview. Would he have gotten the position if DH did not know the lab head? Maybe not, but my kid is still a straight A student interested in science and medicine. We did not pay to play. We did have to pay for his housing.

Where did DS get in? If still in process, this isn't useful data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've interviewed for a top 10 for several years. I've had students denied with:
* Nonprofits (many)
* "Startups"
* Regeneron
* "Research" opportunities
* Normal-excellent ECs (quiz bowl, student gov, etc.)
* Pre med-type ECs (shadowing a doctor or the like)

I've had only two students get in:
* One went to a nationally competitive free summer program
* One had a genuinely competitive internship, i.e. obviously not at his dad's friend's lab

My conclusion based on this small sample size is that the adcom at my alma mater likes people who have already been admitted to programs that resemble the school itself in these respects: highly competitive, with long applications read by a committee, many people denied, but also plentiful financial aid. So, if you are looking for things to do, look for that. Or just have the kid scoop ice cream. It couldn't hurt, and it would be more fun than grinding the fake nonprofit or "research opportunity."

Agree, they are looking for external vetting/application/prestige.
Works every time.

[Anonymous]

I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

oh, get a life. Googling your kids' friends?
Colleges have been filled by managed kids forever.
not changing. esp now with funding issues. this kid is full pay and paying your kids way and more.

[Anonymous]

We were also full pay, but thanks for the feedback lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've interviewed for a top 10 for several years. I've had students denied with:
* Nonprofits (many)
* "Startups"
* Regeneron
* "Research" opportunities
* Normal-excellent ECs (quiz bowl, student gov, etc.)
* Pre med-type ECs (shadowing a doctor or the like)

I've had only two students get in:
* One went to a nationally competitive free summer program
* One had a genuinely competitive internship, i.e. obviously not at his dad's friend's lab

My conclusion based on this small sample size is that the adcom at my alma mater likes people who have already been admitted to programs that resemble the school itself in these respects: highly competitive, with long applications read by a committee, many people denied, but also plentiful financial aid. So, if you are looking for things to do, look for that. Or just have the kid scoop ice cream. It couldn't hurt, and it would be more fun than grinding the fake nonprofit or "research opportunity."

These programs and internships are heavily favoring URM and FGLI kids nowadays. Which aligns well with institutional priorities of elite colleges.
Full pay kids ought to look for different opportunities, sometimes creating their own unique thing while avoiding outdated ones such as non-profit. Instead of shadowing, do an EMT. Instead of quiz bowl, work in a grass-root community internship.